Well said, Onmi and Frank. Simply because Syracuse, WVU, Pitta nd Rutgers are for going to 12 football does not mean they want to jettison a few basketball schools. More than likely, they will keep them for a few less dollars per school, as Seton Hall and Prividence are duplicates of football school markets, but it is better than starting a slippery slope for the remaining basketball schools. Alternatively, I could see a buyout, as Omni stated.

The little four in the B12 are probably a block and, less likely to join now, unless we exceed the 12 mark. Frank rightly points out that if they saty a block, they can probably form the nucleus of a new conference (should the B12 dissolve) add a few schools and if OSU, TTech and/or Baylor are still available, keep them, too. They would probably remain an AQ conference, much like the Big East did. Their TV deal would stink in comparisson to what they have now, but they would survive.

(08-04-2011 10:29 AM)L-yes Wrote:  

(08-04-2011 10:20 AM)Ottoman Wrote:  I think BC would jump at the opportunity to come back to the BE if the money was the same. Not as if they ever really wanted to leave. It was a matter of survival. Everyone thought Miami would be king and the real money would roll through Miami. Really with Miami's downfall and the ACC's medicore status, and BC falling off in BB and FB, there's no upside for them playing in the ACC other than money and security.

I don't think so. The paradox of preachy leftist, egalitarian university administrators is that there is not a more elitist mindset in the universe. Discount the value of association with blue blood, Ivy League wannabes at your own peril.

I completely agree. I've said it a million times: the ACC is WAAAAAY more secure than people give it credit for, and it's largely because of what L-yes just stated above. Sure, the SEC laps ACC football a million times over, but the flipside is that the ACC absolutely crushes the SEC in terms of academics, even taking into account Vandy. It's not even close. In terms of the real big picture dollars - endowments, higher-earning alums, research funding - that dwarf football TV money, the ACC is miles ahead of the SEC.

Sports fans may think it's stupid to link academics with athletics for conferences. Whether they think that connection is stupid or not, the fact remains that university presidents *do* make that connection and they're ultimately the decision makers. Sure, they want to make a ton of TV money, but they at least want to make it appear that they're doing it for the "right" (academic) reasons. BC aspires to be a school like Duke in terms of academics and study body admissions, and one way to get there is to be in the same athletic league as Duke. If the SEC had Big Ten or Pac-12-level academics, then they'd be a serious threat to the ACC. That's simply not the case, though.

(08-04-2011 10:43 AM)Ottoman Wrote:  

(08-04-2011 10:29 AM)L-yes Wrote:  I don't think so. The paradox of preachy leftist, egalitarian university administrators is that there is not a more elitist mindset in the universe. Discount the value of association with blue blood, Ivy League wannabes at your own peril.

The ACC may see itself as the IVY League of the South- as ACC supporters always talk about their academics "private ivies"- yea right.

But here's what's up north:

Harvard-Mass
Yale- COnn
Colmumbia- NYC
Cornell- NYS
Pinceton-NJ
Brown- RI

So enough talk about the ACC and academics. If BC thinks hanging with DUke and UNC is blue blood or IVY- they are in the vast minority for the region they are located in. I think the last five presidents went to school if Mass or COnn. When the lat time we had a pres go to school in North Carolina.

Heck even West Point is up north- in NYS.

This is about sports and money not academics. IF you wanted people to $H!T on themselves when they saw your resume, where would you go? Throw in MIT or Stanford on the west coast and forget about talking about academics other than that. The differences ain't really worth mentioning.

Just because they are in the same region means what? The athletic conference is the most high profile association a university has. Boston College has no shot or desire that I know of to join the Ivy League and I'm sure in the upper reaches of their administration they like rubbing elbows with Duke, Wake Forest, Miami, Virginia, et al.

(08-04-2011 10:43 AM)Ottoman Wrote:  

(08-04-2011 10:29 AM)L-yes Wrote:  I don't think so. The paradox of preachy leftist, egalitarian university administrators is that there is not a more elitist mindset in the universe. Discount the value of association with blue blood, Ivy League wannabes at your own peril.

The ACC may see itself as the IVY League of the South- as ACC supporters always talk about their academics "private ivies"- yea right.

But here's what's up north:

Harvard-Mass
Yale- COnn
Colmumbia- NYC
Cornell- NYS
Pinceton-NJ
Brown- RI

So enough talk about the ACC and academics. If BC thinks hanging with DUke and UNC is blue blood or IVY- they are in the vast minority for the region they are located in. I think the last five presidents went to school if Mass or COnn. When the lat time we had a pres go to school in North Carolina.

Heck even West Point is up north- in NYS.

This is about sports and money not academics. IF you wanted people to $H!T on themselves when they saw your resume, where would you go? Throw in MIT or Stanford on the west coast and forget about talking about academics other than that. The differences ain't really worth mentioning.

There's no conference that has as strong of academics as the Ivy League. However, to then say that just because the ACC isn't as strong as the Ivy League on that front means that their academics aren't worthy is absolutely ridiculous. Duke is one of the top 10 most difficult schools to get into in the country. UVA and UNC are 2 of the top 5 most difficult public universities to get into in the country. 8 ACC members are in the top 50 of the US News rankings, which is more than any other conference other than the Ivy League itself, including the Big Ten that has an explicit academic arm. Florida State and NC State are the 2 outliers that get the most benefit from the association, but even as the lowest rated ACC schools, 50% of the SEC schools still rank below them.

Like I've said, sports fans might think it's stupid to take into account academics. However, university presidents make these decisions, and the entire purpose of their existence is to be snobby Ivory Tower academic-types. To ignore how important they are to the conferences that explicitly care about academics (ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12) is ignoring a huge piece of the conference realignment puzzle.

(08-04-2011 10:49 AM)L-yes Wrote:  Just because they are in the same region means what? The athletic conference is the most high profile association a university has. Boston College has no shot or desire that I know of to join the Ivy League and I'm sure in the upper reaches of their administration they like rubbing elbows with Duke, Wake Forest, Miami, Virginia, et al.

There are colleges where their academic reputation exceeds the profile of their sports programs- as in the real IVY league.

HArvard ain't trying to win the NCAA, they're trying to get more alumn in the White House than Yale has. Or they're trying to kick out the next Zuckerberg or Bill Gates.

That's a whole nother level than the ACC. Somebody needs to tell them that.

(08-04-2011 10:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There's no conference that has as strong of academics as the Ivy League. However, to then say that just because the ACC isn't as strong as the Ivy League on that front means that their academics aren't worthy is absolutely ridiculous. Duke is one of the top 10 most difficult schools to get into in the country. UVA and UNC are 2 of the top 5 most difficult public universities to get into in the country. 8 ACC members are in the top 50 of the US News rankings, which is more than any other conference other than the Ivy League itself, including the Big Ten that has an explicit academic arm. Florida State and NC State are the 2 outliers that get the most benefit from the association, but even as the lowest rated ACC schools, 50% of the SEC schools still rank below them.

Like I've said, sports fans might think it's stupid to take into account academics. However, university presidents make these decisions, and the entire purpose of their existence is to be snobby Ivory Tower academic-types. To ignore how important they are to the conferences that explicitly care about academics (ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12) is ignoring a huge piece of the conference realignment puzzle.

I never said they weren't worthy just not as big a deal you some seem to think they are.

(08-04-2011 11:01 AM)Ottoman Wrote:  That's a whole nother level than the ACC. Somebody needs to tell them that.

Just because you don't think that the ACC (or Big Ten or Pac-12 or anyone else) should care about academics doesn't mean that isn't the reality. If half of the BCS conferences explicitly make academic fit a top priority, then it DOES matter, whether you like it or not. At the same time, just because those BCS leagues aren't adding Harvard-types doesn't mean that they should be then willing to add glorified community colleges just for sports purposes, either. Conferences (and by extension, their member schools) are very protective of their brands and how they are perceived academically is a big part of their brands. Besides, THESE ARE ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS! To say that they don't care about the academics of who they are associating with themselves with in any venue, whether it's sports or books, is simply not true (whether right or wrong in your eyes).

(08-04-2011 11:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-04-2011 11:01 AM)Ottoman Wrote:  That's a whole nother level than the ACC. Somebody needs to tell them that.

Just because you don't think that the ACC (or Big Ten or Pac-12 or anyone else) should care about academics doesn't mean that isn't the reality. If half of the BCS conferences explicitly make academic fit a top priority, then it DOES matter, whether you like it or not. At the same time, just because those BCS leagues aren't adding Harvard-types doesn't mean that they should be then willing to add glorified community colleges just for sports purposes, either. Conferences (and by extension, their member schools) are very protective of their brands and how they are perceived academically is a big part of their brands. Besides, THESE ARE ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS! To say that they don't care about the academics of who they are associating with themselves with in any venue, whether it's sports or books, is simply not true (whether right or wrong in your eyes).

To be clear I’m not arguing that there is not blatant hypocrisy in these situations. There are truckloads and it makes me loathe athletic conferences that espouse this as part of their mission for many reasons. We all know that Duke will recruit the same basketball player as Louisville, UConn or WVU and that without their basketball playing ability I’d bet more than half wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of attending Duke. With football it is even worse.

That said, as Frank notes this is all about branding and it is not for the casual fan. Sports drive enrollment and when little Johnnie becomes a big fan of school XYZ and mom and dad see that school XYZ is associating with UVA, UNC, Duke, WFU, etc. the perception is fairly or unfairly that their child should he gain admission will be joining that elite association on some level.

(08-04-2011 11:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-04-2011 11:01 AM)Ottoman Wrote:  That's a whole nother level than the ACC. Somebody needs to tell them that.

Just because you don't think that the ACC (or Big Ten or Pac-12 or anyone else) should care about academics doesn't mean that isn't the reality. If half of the BCS conferences explicitly make academic fit a top priority, then it DOES matter, whether you like it or not.

Where did I say I don't think the ACC, B10 or Pac-12 should not care about academics. I just said that ACC so called academics won't hold BC if they can get the same money from the BE. And then I added that if you want to talk about academics, the ACC is not at the top of the pile and I may have added that in my opinion, they are overrated in academics.

I never mentioned the PAC-12 but I think UCLA is as good an academic school as any across the country. Did the ACC take VT because of academics? Was VT know for its academics in the BE?

And just this:


Quote:
The expansion that added Virginia Tech, Boston College and Miami to the ACC in 2003 was all about football. Commissioner John Swofford has never made a secret of that fact.

The idea was to enhance the league’s national profile in the sport and attempt to at least narrow the gap that existed between the ACC and virtually every other major conference in America.
http://acc.blogs.starnewsonline.com/2349...it-wanted/

This is from the ACC insider three weeks ago and they didn't even mention academics- just football.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(08-04-2011 11:44 AM)L-yes Wrote:  the perception is fairly or unfairly that their child should he gain admission will be joining that elite association on some level.

"Elite association." I'm just saying that may be the perception in North carolina and Georgia and in the south. The in the north the ACC is hardly considered an "elite academic association."


You're killing me.

Like the guy who wrote SYR should consider UNC because they have 16 networks. Yea right. Like leave the media capital of the world so your students can get exposure in the 16 networks at north carolina.

Luckly, I think even Swofford is beginning to realize that the world does not revolve around the ACC. I think BC's administrators know this as well by now.

(08-04-2011 11:47 AM)Ottoman Wrote:  

(08-04-2011 11:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-04-2011 11:01 AM)Ottoman Wrote:  That's a whole nother level than the ACC. Somebody needs to tell them that.

Just because you don't think that the ACC (or Big Ten or Pac-12 or anyone else) should care about academics doesn't mean that isn't the reality. If half of the BCS conferences explicitly make academic fit a top priority, then it DOES matter, whether you like it or not.

Where did I say I don't think the ACC, B10 or Pac-12 should not care about academics. I just said that ACC so called academics won't hold BC if they can get the same money from the BE. And then I added that if you want to talk about academics, the ACC is not at the top of the pile and I may have added that in my opinion, they are overrated in academics.

I never mentioned the PAC-12 but I think UCLA is as good an academic school as any across the country. Did the ACC take VT because of academics? Was VT know for its academics in the BE?

I don't want to go around in circles, but the bolded statement is completely wrong and the entire point of this debate. BC won't come back to the BE for equal money. In fact, I don't think that they would come back to the BE even if they could offer double the TV money of the ACC. Part of it is academics. Another part of it is long-term stability - the BE might benefit temporarily from market timing for TV sports rights in general, but if we're being realistic, a school is still going to feel safer with Miami/FSU/UNC/Duke in the long-term. Extra rights fees for a few years aren't worth it when within a decade, you could be in an unstable situation again. A lot of people are mistaking the bubble we're seeing for sports rights in general as the same as long-term stability for the underlying value of the conference. It's not the same - the new TV contract will likely ensure that the BE is stable for the next few years, but unless you can reasonably argue that the underlying membership of the ACC is truly worth less than the BE, then there's no reason for BC to move. This isn't even taking into account the legal bad blood that took place between BC and the legacy Big East members in the wake of the ACC raid.

(08-04-2011 12:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don't want to go around in circles, but the bolded statement is completely wrong and the entire point of this debate. BC won't come back to the BE for equal money. In fact, I don't think that they would come back to the BE even if they could offer double the TV money of the ACC. Part of it is academics. Another part of it is long-term stability - the BE might benefit temporarily from market timing for TV sports rights in general, but if we're being realistic, a school is still going to feel safer with Miami/FSU/UNC/Duke in the long-term. Extra rights fees for a few years aren't worth it when within a decade, you could be in an unstable situation again. A lot of people are mistaking the bubble we're seeing for sports rights in general as the same as long-term stability for the underlying value of the conference. It's not the same - the new TV contract will likely ensure that the BE is stable for the next few years, but unless you can reasonably argue that the underlying membership of the ACC is truly worth less than the BE, then there's no reason for BC to move. This isn't even taking into account the legal bad blood that took place between BC and the legacy Big East members in the wake of the ACC raid.

I was actually here when it all went down. BC wasn't leaving the BE for academics they left for money and stability and money will bring them back. (IF we want them back.) BC won't turn down double the money-- you don't know BC administrators.

They have no love for the ACC, they're saving their own azzes.

Secondly, with the SEC and B10 looking at ACC colleges, the ACC is no more stable than the BE. I'd argue the ACC is more likely to be raided by these two then the BE. The ACC is locked into a long term contract no better than the one the BE just turned down.

Which conference is worth more- The BE is in larger markets the ACC is the second player in its markets. You can only say the BE can't develop its markets over the next few years if your real name is Nostradamus. Now that television is the game- the BE may actually be more valuable.

(08-03-2011 09:38 PM)thekevo23 Wrote:  

(08-03-2011 09:13 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  It's my understanding that Pitt, WVU, SU, and RU are united to get to 12 football teams with 2 of them being BCS teams or BCS level teams already and then either Nova, UCF, or UH. What I once believed were the likely final three all appear to be fighting for spot #12.

I think the bb schools may be the ones pushing the Army/Navy thing because there are deep concerns from the fb schools that Army would not be able to compete.

Just not sure who the BCS or BCS level teams are.

BCS - BC, Kansas, K-State, Maryland, Miami, Missouri, VT?
BCS level - BYU?

What are the chances of getting 2 of them?

Cheers,
Neil

Where did this idea that we're for 12 teams and All sports? I haven't heard Doc Gross say anything.

but i think we could get 3. Kansas, KSate, and BYU. That would be a legitimate west division with TCU, Louisville, and Cinci.

To spread out...No way Louisville wants a team from UTAH.

Do your self a favor, talk to Jurich b4 you say that.

Army, Navy and Nova!?

The only one out of that group that I want is Navy.

(08-04-2011 12:24 PM)cardshouse Wrote:  

(08-03-2011 09:38 PM)thekevo23 Wrote:  

(08-03-2011 09:13 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  It's my understanding that Pitt, WVU, SU, and RU are united to get to 12 football teams with 2 of them being BCS teams or BCS level teams already and then either Nova, UCF, or UH. What I once believed were the likely final three all appear to be fighting for spot #12.

I think the bb schools may be the ones pushing the Army/Navy thing because there are deep concerns from the fb schools that Army would not be able to compete.

Just not sure who the BCS or BCS level teams are.

BCS - BC, Kansas, K-State, Maryland, Miami, Missouri, VT?
BCS level - BYU?

What are the chances of getting 2 of them?

Cheers,
Neil

Where did this idea that we're for 12 teams and All sports? I haven't heard Doc Gross say anything.

but i think we could get 3. Kansas, KSate, and BYU. That would be a legitimate west division with TCU, Louisville, and Cinci.

To spread out...No way Louisville wants a team from UTAH.

You're speaking for yourself you're not speaking for Louisville.

(08-04-2011 12:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-04-2011 11:47 AM)Ottoman Wrote:  

(08-04-2011 11:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-04-2011 11:01 AM)Ottoman Wrote:  That's a whole nother level than the ACC. Somebody needs to tell them that.

Just because you don't think that the ACC (or Big Ten or Pac-12 or anyone else) should care about academics doesn't mean that isn't the reality. If half of the BCS conferences explicitly make academic fit a top priority, then it DOES matter, whether you like it or not.

Where did I say I don't think the ACC, B10 or Pac-12 should not care about academics. I just said that ACC so called academics won't hold BC if they can get the same money from the BE. And then I added that if you want to talk about academics, the ACC is not at the top of the pile and I may have added that in my opinion, they are overrated in academics.

I never mentioned the PAC-12 but I think UCLA is as good an academic school as any across the country. Did the ACC take VT because of academics? Was VT know for its academics in the BE?

I don't want to go around in circles, but the bolded statement is completely wrong and the entire point of this debate. BC won't come back to the BE for equal money. In fact, I don't think that they would come back to the BE even if they could offer double the TV money of the ACC. Part of it is academics. Another part of it is long-term stability - the BE might benefit temporarily from market timing for TV sports rights in general, but if we're being realistic, a school is still going to feel safer with Miami/FSU/UNC/Duke in the long-term. Extra rights fees for a few years aren't worth it when within a decade, you could be in an unstable situation again. A lot of people are mistaking the bubble we're seeing for sports rights in general as the same as long-term stability for the underlying value of the conference. It's not the same - the new TV contract will likely ensure that the BE is stable for the next few years, but unless you can reasonably argue that the underlying membership of the ACC is truly worth less than the BE, then there's no reason for BC to move. This isn't even taking into account the legal bad blood that took place between BC and the legacy Big East members in the wake of the ACC raid.

Academics WAS NOT a reason for BC leaving. BC actually almost stayed (they stayed around long enough to help support Cincinnati getting into the conference). BC would have stayed if the Big East football schools had split off and formed an All-Sports conference. BC and Syracuse were leading the charge (with Syracuse calling Cincinnati personally and asking out opinion, I'm sure Louisville got the same call). I tell people outside of the Big East that you have a skewed view because you look at the Big East as week. Saying that BC wouldn't come back even if the Big East doubled the money is ridiculous and naive. If the Big East doubled the money BC would be here, as would several other ACC schools. The legal "bad blood" died off years ago. A new TV deal would assure the Big East's stability for years to come because it would allow the schools to build themselves and the conference up, while allowing us to form our own network. If the Big East formed out own All-Sports Conference, signed a monster TV deal and started our own Network would BC come back? Why wouldn't they since the Big East would be just as stable, if not more stable, then the ACC. Heck, you can easily say that the ACC is only secure for the next few years. Once that contract is up the SEC and Big Ten will come calling for them.

(08-04-2011 12:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don't want to go around in circles, but the bolded statement is completely wrong and the entire point of this debate. BC won't come back to the BE for equal money. In fact, I don't think that they would come back to the BE even if they could offer double the TV money of the ACC. Part of it is academics. Another part of it is long-term stability - the BE might benefit temporarily from market timing for TV sports rights in general, but if we're being realistic, a school is still going to feel safer with Miami/FSU/UNC/Duke in the long-term. Extra rights fees for a few years aren't worth it when within a decade, you could be in an unstable situation again. A lot of people are mistaking the bubble we're seeing for sports rights in general as the same as long-term stability for the underlying value of the conference. It's not the same - the new TV contract will likely ensure that the BE is stable for the next few years, but unless you can reasonably argue that the underlying membership of the ACC is truly worth less than the BE, then there's no reason for BC to move. This isn't even taking into account the legal bad blood that took place between BC and the legacy Big East members in the wake of the ACC raid.

This statement makes the assumption that all things remain equal. That may or may not be the case. Again no one knows what plans The Big East has. Two years ago everyone thought the PAC was on shaky finanacial ground. Then Larry Scott drops his innovative media package bomb and boom The PAC is making SEC / Big 10 money.

As for The ACC's imagine as being some bastion of academic excellence, some suffer from selective, The Ivy League it isn't. "Glorified Commuter Schools" don't cheat like this:

FSU...Free Shoes Scandal in 1993. Still the classic example of cheating in college football. Earned FSU the Free Shoes U moniker.

Georgia Tech....cheating scandals that require GT to vacate wins from 1998-2002 and in 2004 as well. More sanctions pending...

UNC...academic fraud by Butch Davis and Company...sanctions pending

Maryland...academic cheating by Edsall's predecessor... sanctions pending

I doubt a decade ago that many here would have argued that VT would be excelling in The ACC. When most think of Michael and Marcus Vick, I doubt scholar athlete is the first thing that comes to mind.

My point is The ACC bends the rules. Not quite as much as The SEC but close. A conference that truly cared about it's academic image would not tolerate these type of activities. The truth is, if The ACC wants to project a shining spotless image of academics and athletics, it must prepared to have its less then complimentary conduct examined as well.
CJ

(08-04-2011 07:32 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(08-04-2011 12:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don't want to go around in circles, but the bolded statement is completely wrong and the entire point of this debate. BC won't come back to the BE for equal money. In fact, I don't think that they would come back to the BE even if they could offer double the TV money of the ACC. Part of it is academics. Another part of it is long-term stability - the BE might benefit temporarily from market timing for TV sports rights in general, but if we're being realistic, a school is still going to feel safer with Miami/FSU/UNC/Duke in the long-term. Extra rights fees for a few years aren't worth it when within a decade, you could be in an unstable situation again. A lot of people are mistaking the bubble we're seeing for sports rights in general as the same as long-term stability for the underlying value of the conference. It's not the same - the new TV contract will likely ensure that the BE is stable for the next few years, but unless you can reasonably argue that the underlying membership of the ACC is truly worth less than the BE, then there's no reason for BC to move. This isn't even taking into account the legal bad blood that took place between BC and the legacy Big East members in the wake of the ACC raid.

This statement makes the assumption that all things remain equal. That may or may not be the case. Again no one knows what plans The Big East has. Two years ago everyone thought the PAC was on shaky finanacial ground. Then Larry Scott drops his innovative media package bomb and boom The PAC is making SEC / Big 10 money.

As for The ACC's imagine as being some bastion of academic excellence, some suffer from selective, The Ivy League it isn't. "Glorified Commuter Schools" don't cheat like this:

FSU...Free Shoes Scandal in 1993. Still the classic example of cheating in college football. Earned FSU the Free Shoes U moniker.

Georgia Tech....cheating scandals that require GT to vacate wins from 1998-2002 and in 2004 as well. More sanctions pending...

UNC...academic fraud by Butch Davis and Company...sanctions pending

Maryland...academic cheating by Edsall's predecessor... sanctions pending

I doubt a decade ago that many here would have argued that VT would be excelling in The ACC. When most think of Michael and Marcus Vick, I doubt scholar athlete is the first thing that comes to mind.

My point is The ACC bends the rules. Not quite as much as The SEC but close. A conference that truly cared about it's academic image would not tolerate these type of activities. The truth is, if The ACC wants to project a shining spotless image of academics and athletics, it must prepared to have its less then complimentary conduct examined as well.
CJ

Great points. Im sure that academics have their place as far as the acc goes. But its only relative. How many times have Ivy League schools been in trouble with the Ncaa this decade? I dont remember any. If it was all about academics in the acc, these schools would not have a win at all costs attitude. Revenues play a much larger part in this than some would care to admit. If someone truly thinks that acc schools like BC and Miami would turn down double the money to stay in the acc then I would like to meet such a truly delusional person. Keep in mind that these schools followed the money to the acc for alot less than what the BE can potentially offer.

(08-04-2011 07:49 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  John Marinatto has been quoted on Boston College having a standing offer to return to the Big East. So the BCS schools and others are are:

Boston College
Maryland
Missouri
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa Sate
BYU
East Carolina
Houston

If John Marinatto tries to force Villanova, Army and Navy, I believe that forces the split!

Put Miami (FL) on that list of teams. I think I speak for all USF fans when I say they would rather play Miami every year instead of UCF. Although, if we can't get Miami to return then take UCF as I think we need two Florida schools.